Re: [HOKEY] New one-week WGLC limited to 5926bis IPR

[Glen Zorn <[e-mail]>]

On 3/22/2012 4:39 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So IETF LC is done for this and I think my comment below
> and the IANA considerations were the only things that came up.
> 
> Could the authors please handle my comment below (and check
> I-D nits [1] as well which has a couple of things you may
> as well handle at the same time).

-07 (yet to be posted) has no problems w/I-D nits except for a spurious
warning about a missing references and the incorrect error about the
normative reference to RFC 2104.

> 
> For the IANA considerations, IANA asked what to do about the
> existing registries in 5296 and I at least didn't know. The
> IESG (I asked) felt that best would be to repeat the definition
> here and ask IANA to make 5296bis be the reference for those
> registries. (See some text by Barry Leiba below that makes
> this clear.) If the authors/WG/chairs are ok with that the
> can you do it? If you want to do something else, please tell
> me what, and I'll do a quick check with the IESG that that'll
> not cause a bunch of discusses.

Personally, I think it's a really bad idea for people to use RFCs as
references for protocol numbers; the IANA registry is the authoritative
source, repeating a snapshot of that source in a document that  will
never change is at best confusing.  I would much prefer just adding
something like "For the current list of assignments related to ERP, see
the IANA registry [EAP-NUMBERS]." where [EAP-NUMBERS] cites
http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xml.

...

> On 02/21/2012 05:22 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not about IPR as it happens, but caused by looking at that:-)
>>
>> I just happened to be looking at this and I've only now
>> noticed that there is actually no reference for RFC5296
>> in the body of the document, which I guess isn't quite
>> right. (Yes, the meta-data is fine, and yes the
>> abstract says it, but without a reference.)
>>
>> Sorry not to have spotted this before but I bet that
>> it'd generate a nit-picking discuss so maybe better
>> to head that off before we go there.
>>
>> I'd suggest adding a sentence to end of the introduction
>> saying something like:
>>
>> This document updates RFC 5296. [RFC5296] The main
>> changes are foo and bar.
>>
>> Or maybe something like:
>>
>> This document contains a set of minor updates to
>> RFC 5296 [RFC5296] based on implementation and
>> deployment experience.
>>
>> Or whatever is actually the case.
>>
>> And then add the (informative) reference of course!

OK, so during the IESG review of RFC 3588bis, we got nit-picking
discusses about referencing RFC 3588 because it would be obsolete soon.
 Seems like a no-win situation to me...

...